A High Court judge has ruled that a series of allegations made by Laurence Fox about Narinder Kaur amounted to “contemptuous” attacks on her “integrity, sincerity and reliability”.
At a hearing, the High Court was asked to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of a number of publications made by Fox, together with whether those meanings were defamatory at common law.
In relation to Fox’s social media posts referencing Mrs Kaur’s former OnlyFans account, which she states she used to post cooking videos, the Judge concluded that the publications alleged she had presented a false image of herself to the public while concealing the truth.
Mr Justice Linden ruled: “The allegation that the Claimant was projecting a false image of herself to the public in her tweets, and had taken steps to conceal the truth about herself, is a clear attack on her integrity, her sincerity and the reliability of what she says.”
He added that the allegations crossed “the threshold of seriousness” and would be “likely materially to adversely affect how people treated her.”
The Court reached similar conclusions over comments made by Fox during an episode of the Fox & Father podcast, in which he alleged that Mrs Kaur had exposed herself to photographers before later deleting her OnlyFans account.
Mr Justice Linden stated: “A key theme of the conversation was that the Claimant was not the victim that she publicly claimed to be, and the Defendant also alleged that she deleted her OnlyFans account in order to conceal this from the public.
“This was an attack on her integrity, sincerity and reliability.”
Responding to Mrs Kaur’s interview with The Times, Fox also alleged that she was seeking to profit from a false public image.
The Judge ruled: “At the heart of the Defendant’s words was an allegation that the Claimant was seeking to capitalise on a false public image of herself and was therefore cynical and lacking in integrity.”
The Court also considered publications in which Fox alleged Mrs Kaur had knowingly participated in staged paparazzi photographs.
Mr Justice Linden found that the publications conveyed the meaning that Mrs Kaur had agreed to the taking of a photograph which would falsely be presented as capturing her in an unguarded moment.
He concluded: “The references to her being an attention seeker, and ‘a few quid’, conveyed the idea that she was desperate for any form of publicity and willing to sell herself cheaply to achieve it.”
He said the publications amounted to “a contemptuous statement that she lacked integrity, dignity and self-respect” and were sufficiently serious to be defamatory.
In relation to another publication referring to Mrs Kaur as a “double digit IQ OnlyFans skank”, Mr Justice Linden ruled that it amounted to: “an attack on the Claimant’s integrity in presenting herself to the public as a victim”.
He found that the term “skank” conveyed the imputation that she was “sleazy and of low sexual morals”.
The court rejected the submission that the word “skank” would be understood to mean “prostitute”.
But it concluded that another publication conveyed that Mrs Kaur “lacks integrity in making public pronouncements which do not reflect the truth about her, and that she is a person of low sexual morals”.
The High Court also ruled that another publication alleged Mrs Kaur had falsely reported Fox to the police.
Mr Justice Linden held that readers would understand it to mean: “that the Claimant had made a false report of sexual assault to the police and thereby may have committed a criminal offence.”
In another post, in which Fox described Narinder Kaur as a “race-baiting gash flasher” who would “jump on any bandwagon for £50”, the court found the publication portrayed her as: “insincere, mercenary and unprincipled” and suggested that: “the reputation of others would be damaged if they allowed her to associate with them.”
The judgment also addressed comments made by Fox during interviews with Larry Taunton and Liam Tuffs.
In relation to the Larry Taunton interview, Mr Justice Linden ruled:
“The Defendant’s remarks were an attack on her integrity, which alleged that she was presenting herself as a person of high moral standards when in fact she was quite the opposite.”
Considering Fox’s interview with Liam Tuffs, the judge rejected the argument that the comments merely raised suspicion.
Instead, he said: “The Defendant was positively asserting that she had done the deal… and was flashing her genitalia to all and sundry.”
The ruling follows a preliminary hearing on the meanings of the publications relied upon by Mrs Kaur in her libel proceedings. Her wider High Court claim against Fox is continuing.
Separately, Fox is due to stand trial in December 2027 under Section 66A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 over allegations that he published an explicit image of Narinder Kaur on X with the intention of causing alarm, distress or humiliation. He denies the criminal charges.
Loading ...